Justifying Certain Acts of Violence

No country should have to endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza.

The Times has questions about the wisdom of a ground invasion in Gaza–questions that mostly involve whether it would be wise from an Israeli point of view. Such an escalation would be "especially risky," and might not be the "most effective way of advancing" Israel's "long-term interests." But from the start, the message is that this violence is, on some level justified.

I think there is no question it was justified. Look, the attacks, they had gone crazy in terms of the scope and intensity.

By "attacks" he presumably means rockets launched into Israel from Gaza. Those rockets spiked in the last few days in response to a series of Israeli attacks and incursions. As Alex Kane noted at Mondoweiss, the flashpoint seems to have been a November 8 Israeli attack that killed a young boy:

It would be hard to imagine U.S. pundits and editorialists discussing the appropriate amount of violent acts Palestinians are entitled to carry out in response to Israeli attacks. Operation Cast Lead in late 2008 and 2009 killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Would someone like Zakaria endorse a Palestinian reprisals? Of course not. Justification for violence works one way.

On January 4, 2009, Zakaria devoted his whole CNN show to the Israeli assault on Gaza. And he stated at the top:

I start from the premise that Israel had ample justification for its actions. If our cities, your cities, were subject to repeated rocket attacks, you would also believe that it was provocation enough to respond. So, it's justifiable.

So long as media prefer this narrative–one that says every Israeli action is a response to violence and not an act of violence–they will endorse such attacks. And the violence will continue on all sides.

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

As a long-time FAIR subscriber, I've come to realize that one must watch Hart every moment to monitor his offensive and absurd anti-Zionist propaganda.

Here are the facts. No one is accusing Israel of deliberately killing the 12-year-old boy. Rather, he was an unfortunate casualty of a border skirmish. But any reader without the facts would infer from Hart's article that Israel deliberately murdered the boy. This is irresponsible reporting of the kind that we've grown to expect from Hart.

The fact is that Israel has been remarkably restrained in enduring year after year of shelling from the fascist terrorists who run Gaza. No other country would show comparable restraint. Further, no military in the history of the world has gone to greater efforts to avoid civilian casualties than the Israeli military.

On the other side, the Palestinian leadership and Arab states routinely target Israeli civilians. At present, for example, Hamas is indiscriminately shelling civilians in Israel.

But what else is new? The Arabs engaged in bloody riots against Jewish immigrants in Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s, including massacres in Hebron and Safed. The Arab armies went out of their way to target Jewish civilians in the 1948 War of Independence, including a massacre of a medical convoy. In the 1950s-1960s, feyadeen went after civilians at weddings and in synagogues. Then there was the massacre of Israeli athletes in 1972, the suicide bombings starting in the 1980s. The list goes on and on.

If all the violence has been Palestinian, how come Israel is increasing the size of the land it controls? Oh, must be that these stories convince American voters to continue providing more aid to this one country (formulated by British and American leaders) than all the other needy nations of the world–and military aid including, somehow, nuclear bombs they happened to get that are forbidden for Iran. I believe that foreign aid should be limited to food, medicine and building materials; fewer armaments mean fewer deaths.

Thank you to Fair for answering the question: who's violence is this? The right-wing nuts of Israel won't understand you but we know their only understanding is a fundamentalist, ideological paranoia that today [11/16/2012] killed 30 Palestinian civilians to 3 Israelies

William, there is certainly no shame, none whatsoever in being anti-Zionist. The movement has a deplorable history including, but not limited to terrorism, state and otherwise.

That said, your attempts to say that Hart is implying that Israel was targeting the 12-year-old child are laughable in the extreme. On that note, I thank you for discrediting yourself so early on in your comment. It just goes downhill from there, as has already been pointed out.

I urge you to maintain your easily dismissible rhetoric, as it makes you, well, more easy to dismiss.

Fairs duplicity never amuses me ,or surprises me.Yes yes it is Israel's fault and they should just accept an endless stream of missiles?Stuff that rot.Time to close the tank hatches and go find, and dispatch the animals who are trying their best to kill innocents.Drive them back.Bring them to battle and annihilate them.This they respect.This is all they understand.They may hate the IDF.But they will respect its lethality.

Never ending blockades, walls which would shame those which were erected in Berlin or along the border in the old South Afreica, Patriot and "Iron Dome" "defenses", thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, hundreds of combat aircraft and helicopters and drones, hundreds of nuclear missiles, death squads, and billions of tax free dollars and euros from the West; yet Israel and its all knowing Mossad and its all powerful IDF remain locked in perennial conflict with people who don't have a fraction of its technical or financial resources or the benefits of one sided "journalism". I guess that in the 21st century, colonialism and land theft aren't as fun, cheap, and easy as they once were, even when they are rationalized by religious convictions.

Michael e, what do you suppose compels them to launch rockets? They're vastly underpowered by comparison, so why would they poke that bear with a stick? Particularly after the bear had already killed 1400, it wouldn't be a rational act. Are you sure there isn't some legitimate motivation, rather than just assuming that they're irrational?

[…] York Times or the Globe & Mail, NPR or the CBC, all the major news coverage of the conflict is biased in favor of Israel's elaborate PR machinery. Even supposedly progressive sources like Mother […]

The one thing Israel isn't anymore is small and weak. It is a power house. In fact the nuclear giant in the area yet the way they are treated by our CMSM they are not the one upsetting the balance of power there. Israel is nothing like it was in 1948 so why is it continually in our biased media treat them that way that is so wrong? Look to the owners of the media and they are Corporate and Conservative.

Snowshoe, you're right. If you have no means of rebutting what I wrote, then you may as well throw in the proverbial towel. But don't lose that caustic wit!

Rehsab Thgir, glad to hear you're comfortable dismissing episodes like the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. But why don't you try dismissing Martin Luther King, Jr.? As John Lewis recounted: "During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, 'When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.'” Good luck, Rehsab!

ridovem00, have you ever looked at Hamas' charter? Here's a nice excerpt: "Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

Here's another one: The Jews "stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about." I got news for you, ridovem00 – that rhetoric ain't pro-revolution.

Good luck, ridovem00! And don't expect help from Rehsab, who's busy refuting Martin Luther King Jr.

William, the onus is on you to provide substantiation for your somewhat incredible assertion, not on me to rebut it. What evidence do you have for saying that "no military in the history of the world has gone to greater efforts to avoid civilian casualties than the Israeli military"? Really? In history? Seriously? If you don't have proof, you'll have to accept that it was an ill-considered declaration. Have fun with that…

Snowshoe, actually the onus is on you to explain why you characterized my assertion as "somewhat incredible." You provided no evidence for this characterization.

As a long-time FAIR subscriber and left-wing activist, I admit that I tire of educating simple-minded anti-Zionists. But I'll try once again.

Here's just one example buttressing my assertion. Testifying before the United Nations, Col. Richard Kemp, a British commander, stated:
"Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population…The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks."

This type of information is accessible to anyone, Snowshoe, even you. Do your homework next time before you spout off.

William, perhaps you'd be good enough to refer me to what in my postings has lead you to call me an "anti-Zionist"? My issue has been with what you have said – I haven't said anything that could be construed as even remotely anti-Zionist.

Thank you for the reference to what Col. Kemp said. It seems that the UN remained unconvinced though, if the executive summary of the so-called 'Goldstone Report' is anything to go by. I dunno – I suppose it was the use of white phosphorus and indiscriminate bombing that got their noses out of joint. Kemp is a joke – everyone knew that from the moment he uttered that rubbish.

Homework involves more than just finding a poorly regarded opinion and parroting it out as fact. Unless you believe it to be nothing more than anti-Zionist rhetoric, read the executive summary – you can find it at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE1.pdf. Unquestionably neither side is without blame, but I'd be surprised if you were willing to continue to quote Kemp after reading it.

Snowshoe, at least have the courage of your convictions. Of course you're an anti-Zionist.

Only an anti-Zionist would still be parading around the Goldstone Report. You might recall that the Goldstone Report was repudiated by none other than Goldstone himself.

Only an anti-Zionist would reference Israeli "indiscriminate bombing" of Gaza. Here's what Goldstone said in 2011 about Israeli military policy in Gaza – "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

On the other hand, Goldstone wrote, "That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets." Kind of like today, eh, Snowshoe?

William,
As a Zionist, Goldstone faced massive political pressure over the report. He was vilified by pro-Israel groups as a "self-hating Jew" and his report was likened to a blood libel, a false charge against Jews with roots in medieval anti-Semitism. He was boycotted by Jewish communities around the world and wasn't allowed to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah. One can only imagine what other pressure may have been exerted – Israel was clearly not happy.

So I'm anti-Zionist not because of anything that I'd said, but because of something that I was going to say? Wow! Aren't you clever? Regarding my assertion of indiscriminate bombing, I include section of the Goldstone Report for your reading pleasure, titled 'Indiscriminate attacks by Israeli forces resulting in the loss of life and injury to civilians'.

"41. The Mission examined the mortar shelling of al-Fakhura junction in Jabaliyah next to a UNRWA school, which, at the time, was sheltering more than 1,300 people (chap. X). The Israeli armed forces launched at least four mortar shells. One landed in the courtyard of a family
home, killing 11 people assembled there. Three other shells landed on al-Fakhura Street, killing at least a further 24 people and injuring as many as 40. The Mission examined in detail statements by Israeli Government representatives alleging that the attack was launched in
response to a mortar attack from an armed Palestinian group. While the Mission does not exclude that this may have been the case, it considers the credibility of Israel’s position damaged by the series of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the statements justifying the attack.

42. In drawing its legal conclusions on the attack on al-Fakhura junction, the Mission recognizes that, for all armies, decisions on proportionality, weighing the military advantage to be gained against the risk of killing civilians, will present very genuine dilemmas in certain
cases. The Mission does not consider this to be such a case. The firing of at least four mortar shells to attempt to kill a small number of specified individuals in a setting where large numbers of civilians were going about their daily business and 1,368 people were sheltering nearby cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought. The Mission thus considers the attack to have been indiscriminate, in violation of international law, and to have violated the right to life of the Palestinian civilians killed in these incidents."

You're an intelligent enough person William, but you clearly don't have any interest in reasoned discussion. Given that your viewpoint seems so contrary to the typical audience of FAIR, I've concluded that you're either a troll or a paid denier, so won't likely engage in any further discussion with you on this thread.

[…] York Times or the Globe & Mail, NPR or the CBC, all the major news coverage of the conflict is biased in favor of Israel’s elaborate PR machinery. Even supposedly progressive sources like Mother […]

Maybe we should act to demilitarize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If Israel did not attack Gaza, maybe Gazans would not attack Israel. If Gazans did not attack Israel, maybe Israelis would not attack Gaza. By this time it is impossible for anyone to come away with clean hands. Israel has the military power and chooses to keep the conflict on the military plane. If they engaged in other tactics, like mobilizing international political support, diplomacy, international law, and negotiations, they may be able to generate support for a peaceful resolution and then Palestinian terrorism would invite a united international response (probably frrom the PA Authority as well, if there were a settlement they could possibly accept). Read Gareth Porter's "Perils of Dominance" about the temptations of overwhelming military force to solve non-military problems.

According to "unbiased" Israeli and Western news reports, For the past year, Palestinian "terrorist" rockets have been "raining" down on Israel like confetti.

Now even Murphy's Law says that at least ONE of these rockets must have caused death, injury and destruction somewhere in Israel. [I do not include the rocket that supposedly killed 3 Israelis AFTER the start of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza].

And yet there isn't a single news report of this happening over the past year. If it had then the Israeli and Western media would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

Snowshoe you asked why they launch rockets.Let me tell you a story.Turtle goes down to cross the Jordan river.A scorpion jumps on his back and says- take me across or I will sting you and kill you.Half way over he stings the turtle and both begin to drown.Why asks the turtle….why?Scorpion shrugs and says …this is the middle east.This part of the world has been this way long before Israel.If Israel falls -it will be so long after.Israel is a garden built in a wasteland.A garden of Democracy and beauty.Around them are the hardscrabble rocks.A merciless sun and people that grow out that land.For thousands of years like a weed among those rocks they struggle to survive.To hold the high ground.To strangle and kill all who enter.Jews came and went from this cauldron over those centuries.They have built a better way out of that desert.But their are still those who want to strangle the life out of them.For existing.My hope is they dwindle as those who want peace flourish.i have been to Israel AND arab lands.I tell you this.Young jewish children are taught to hope for peace with their Arab neighbors,but be prepared for war.Arab children it has been my sad experience to see are taught to HATE the jew ,and hope for a victorious war against them.I do not see that seed of a hope for peace there.

@Michael e, you can't expect to sway anyone with fables, rhetoric and opinion. Claims that entire races are raised and taught to hate Jews but that Jews are better is nothing more than justification for ongoing war. Until there is widespread recognition that there is fault on both sides, no peace process will ever be possible. The US in particular needs to stop blindly backing Israel and start calling them to account for their actions. Israel is not without blame for the problems in the Middle East – face up to it.

Snowshoe.Im telling you that if The arabs gave up on violence the israelis would celebrate the peace.Deaths by Israel -would drop to nothing.If Israel on the other hand gives up on military style operations in defense of themselves tomorrow ,cold turkey .Or if all thier arms were taken away as if by magic….-it would simply mean more and more jewish deaths.climbing everyday in everyway.Like lambs to the slaughter.Repeat of 1939-45.If Hamas had the bomb today they would use it tomorrow.In the heart of israel.They care nothing for your liberal morals sir.Or your outdated ideas of peace.They want jews gone.Dead.Hunted down until none remain anywhere.Then they will turn their eyes to new enemies.

@Michael e, you're apparently of the opinion that none of the blame belongs to Israel. If that's the case and the Gazans are a fundamentally flawed group of people, what do you propose the solution is? Simply massacre them? Are Arabs really a without merit or hope? Having spent a reasonable time in Arab countries in the Middle East, I pity you if you feel that way.

Snowshoe, you manage to get everything wrong about the Goldstone Report. To begin with, it was not massive pressure that caused him to renounce the report. Rather, Goldstone produced the report in the first place precisely because of the massive pressure under which Jews are constantly placed, namely, to condemn Israel, which is now the surrogate for Jew-haters around the world.

Second, the report was idiotic from the outset, even before Goldstone put the final nails in its coffin by repudiating it. Among other absurdities, the Gaza witnesses had their testimony televised and monitored by Hamas, thus rendering such testimlony worthless from the beginning.

The funniest part of your last response came at the end where you said that if my viewpoint doesn't correspond to that of "the typical audience of FAIR," I must be a troll or "a paid denier" (whatever that is). In other words, anti-Israel orthodoxy on the Left must never be challenged!

William, the UN should never have felt that they needed to put a Zionist in charge of that report. They did so to ensure that there could be no claims of a personal bias against Israel, as there undoubtedly would have been had the exact same report come out with someone else at the helm. As it turned out it was a bad idea to try to appease Israel, but it was a no-win situation for the UN – there was always going to be a way for the Zionists to spin it.

Second, the Gaza witnesses had their testimony televised and monitored by Israel too. You imply that they would have been under some threat if they didn't say the right things – that's a very often practiced but quite transparent way of painting them as brutal murderers without saying anything at all. Plenty of those testimonies were by people who had seen friends and family die in what the UN quite clearly deemed to be brutal and indiscriminate circumstances. Do you really think they needed to be threatened to express their outrage and sadness? You seem to think this is a game – those witnesses were people just like you and I. Would you have needed threatening? Not only would I not have needed it, but it wouldn't have worked – I'd have said what I'd felt.

Your use of tricks such as the one mentioned in the previous paragraph, the amount of time that you spend on a site that is generally contrary to your beliefs and your claim not to know what a paid denier means leads me to conclude that you're exactly that.

There's no such thing as "anti-Israeli orthodox." On the left, that is. A cursory check of the utter, blind enthusiasm of the vast majority of congress-people for anything that Israel does to "protect itself" should alarm any thinking person. What you mistake as "anti-Israel orthodoxy" (Orthodoxy? Give me a break–phony intellectualism masquerading as thoughtful reflection on nasty, vulgar acts and dumb violence) is in fact almost always simply basic observations and commentary on what is terribly palin to the vast majority of people.
Except Americans, and especially Americans of both parties in Congress. Our basic inability to uderstand what's going on "over there" in the "Middle East" will cost us dearly, perhaps very soon. (Think Iran.)

Snowshoe, you're funny. I don't "imply" that the Gaza witnesses felt threatened by having their testimony monitored by Hamas. I assert that this is beyond dispute.

And you're quite a big talker – "I'd have said what I'd felt." The proof's in the pudding, Snowshoe. Since you claim not to be an anti-Zionist, why don't you head to Gaza and voice some pro-Zionist leanings (you know, just to establish your even-handed bona fides)? I'm sure that Hamas will welcome these views with open arms.

TimN, if you don't think there's an anti-Zionist orthodoxy on the Left, then you don't subscribe to as many left-wing journals as I do. Here's a tip for you – every left-winger should support Israel, and anyone who doesn't support Israel is not left-wing.

Further, TimN, if you don't think Israel has the right to protect itself, then you've thrown yourself squarely in the camp of anti-semites who love to urge suicidal behavior on the Jews. Congratulations!

snowshoe you asked me a straight question "do I think the Gazan's are a flawed people".And unlike people on this site…. I will give you a straight answer.Yes I do.Of course not genetically.But from a sociological perspective,speaking to their social structure(melding with their religious/political/historical attitudes….yes.Deeply flawed.And of course this extends to a large part of the middle east.It has not helped them through the many centuries- in their quest for a peaceful existence.Israel is just the latest excuse

Michael e, if you believe that the Gazans are sociologically flawed and the Israelis are inherently more reasonable and measured, are you in favour of genocide? Presumably you would see genocide as an improvement to the region?

William, calling me "funny" is another example of denigrating my opinion with being directly derogatory. It's the same mechanism that I pointed out in your other recent post – you want to be careful, or people will start to see through you.

I do say what I mean. As I pointed out, you had no reason to assume that I was anti-Zionist. As far as me visiting Gaza to espouse pro-Zionist leanings, you can forget it – I have none. As to whether the Gazans would welcome it, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't, especially after 170 of them have been killed in the past nine days, with many of them being children. I imagine that they're slightly touchy about that just now.

Snowshoe genocide is of course no answer for the stubborn intransient,hate filled people who live alongs ones own boarders as is the case with Israel.Israel still searches for that cure.If the power balance were reversed……Israel would of been eradicated in a second holocaust long ago.I have no doubt genocide would be acceptable to Arab factions facing Israel.

Michael e, I'm no expert in international relations, but if Israel's neighbours are as you have painted them, I would have thought that the worst approach would be to feed their rage by exercising vastly superior fire power while engaging them in essentially one-sided battles, especially while enjoying what much of the world perceives as unfair support from the US.

I don't think that it's a viable long-term strategy, but what do I know?

William, you use the word Anti- Zionist to describe snowshoe, as if it meant the same thing as being Anti-Semitic. Just because a person may disagree with current conservative nationalist Israeli policies, doesn't mean that person is completely against granting Israel their right to exist. Now for my 2 cents. I think that an olive branch needs to be extended at some point by one of these 2 parties in order for the violence to end. Usually in circumstances like these, it would be ideal if the more powerful country, Israel were to be the bigger man so to speak. They need to demonstrate to the international community especially those Arab countries who hate them so much that they are willing to meet somewhere in the middle. If they are able to come across as having done their best at making an attempt at peace then their preemptive/counterattacks would seem so morally unjustified. It takes too much pride for Palestinians and Hamas to just roll over and accept Israeli occupation, accept that they lost the war, accept that they may never get a lot of their land back, It's just not going to happen. You cannot blame a child as much you can the adult in matters that require maturity to overcome. It is time for Israel to start acting like an adult!